Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:19:43 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: depend + all vs dependall Message-ID: <20030331221454.S18507@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20030331112420.GA9806@sunbay.com> References: <20030329.163343.53040416.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030331042628.GA65700@sunbay.com> <20030331075623.GA82512@sunbay.com><20030331112420.GA9806@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 09:06:07PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > On a Celeron 800 system with ATA100 disk using -j4 -DNOCLEAN buildworld > > > of RELENG_4 a friend reported the following times: > > > > > > Without patch With patch > > > real 69m43.271s 69m26.722s > > > user 38m22.009s 38m19.384s > > > sys 10m45.273s 10m41.596s > > > > > > Further reports show that on single-CPU systems with large CPU > > > cache the real time win was near what I have reported for 2-CPU > > > box, and it had no effect on small cache single-CPU systems and > > > -j builds. > > > > I think I understand why it often makes little difference: it saves > > a tree traversal, but costs an extra make process for each leaf > > directory. > > > Hardly so. My patch doesn't affect leaf directories; only > level 1 bsd.subdir.mk makefiles (*bin*/Makefile, etc.) are > affected by this parallelization. I thought that the above times were for dependall and was trying to explain why the optimization was so small. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030331221454.S18507>